PS3 Backwards Compatibility Going...Going...Gone?

Home » PS3

PS3 Backwards Compatibility Going…Going…Gone?

Submitted by Paul Munn on February 6, 2008 – 12:45 am9 Comments

PS3

Charting the progression of PlayStation 3 models is starting to get a little bit like trying to draw a family tree of the animal kingdom. In the beginning, there were the 20GB and 60GB models, both with hardware PS2 backwards compatibility. Once the 20GB was determined to be a flop, the 80GB with software backwards compatibility was introduced. In an effort to cut costs some hardware was lopped off the system, the 60GB model phased out, and the 40GB model was born with no PS2 compatibility whatsoever. Now comes the revelation that the 80GB is being discontinued in some way, with Best Buy and GameStop reporting in their respective conference calls that they won’t be selling it any longer.

Did the 40GB really outsell the 80GB that much more over the holidays? Possibly, but every time I see someone carrying a PS3 to a register in a store it’s the 80GB unit and not the 40GB one. If the 40GB really did account for the lion’s share of sales, perhaps the market has spoken up about backwards compatibility after all and found it not to be particularly compelling.

To me this sounds like a perfect opportunity for Sony to chop the backwards compatibility of the 80GB unit out entirely, spruce it up with a Dual Shock 3 — which still doesn’t have an official release date in North America, you know — and maybe beef up its hard drive before putting it back on sale at the same price, maybe a bit cheaper if they drop the price on the 40GB unit.

Do you think backwards compatibility is important enough to keep in the PS3? Tell us what you think in the comments below.

Source: PlayStation Universe.

chackokhan

Owning a large library of PS2 and PS1 games, “backwards compatibility” definitely played a part in determining which “nextgen” console(s) I was going to purchase. It definitely concern’s me on the direction SONY is heading with regards to future gen consoles.
http://www.eklipse.net morphiend

My wife has stated over and over “if it doesn’t have backwards compability, I don’t want a PS3″, but she still wants to play FFXIII.

Personally, I think its ridiculous not to have that capability. Software? Hardware? I don’t care which, just give us one.
http://xeonmachina.com/ Laurence Gonsalves

If the 80GB model did, indeed have slower sales than the 40GB model, I wonder if part of the issue was that anyone who really cares about backwards compatibility tried to get a 60GB model. I know I did.

60GB PS3s were quite easy to find in early December (Amazon.com still had some in stock, for example). By early January they were much harder to find.

Is the only difference between the 40GB model and 80GB model compatibility-wise software? If so, I have a hard time understanding how adding software compatibility adds to the production costs… unless they’re licensing the software from someone else.
http://www.fourhman.com Joe – fourhman.com

The only reason I wanted backwards compatibility on the PS3 was because I planned on selling my PS2. And then I never got around to selling my PS2.

At this point, anybody who wants backwards compatibility should just, you know, buy a PS2.
http://www.farbot.com/ Paul Munn

Laurence,

There are hardware differences as well. Of course the hard drive has half the capacity, there are only 2 USB ports on the 40GB instead of 4 USB ports on the 80GB, and the flash card reader (compact flash, SD card, and memory stick) is gone from the 40GB while still intact on the 80GB model. Internally there are some hardware chips that were removed from the 40GB that were used in the 80GB to do some PS2 compatibility in conjunction with the firmware.

So really, in terms of hardware, the 80GB is midway between a 60GB and a 40GB. It lost most of the hardware related to PS2 compatibility and replaced it with software to do a similar job.

I have to agree with Joe that folks who want to play PS2 games are really best served by buying a PS2. While Sony really needs all the profit it can get, I’d like to see it put the PS2 down to USD 99 if and when the 40GB PS3 reaches 349 or 299. This way the unofficial line would be: Get your highly compatible last-gen goodness for roughly the price of 3 new last-gen games.

Of course the dirty secret is that the newest PS2′s haven’t been as compatible with PS2 software as the original, launch units. Some games just won’t run on the newest ones, but they are so few in number and nearly all of them are so awful that nobody misses them.
chackokhan

Here’s my take on the direction that SONY is going. They want to make a larger profit and recoup their losses. One way to do this is to kill the the backwards compatibility while still keeping the PS3 at a $400-$300 price level. Now if I want to play a PS1 game on my console the only way to do it is to pay and download from their store (just like Nintendo), which will add to their profit.

RANT MODE ON:
The problem I see here is that if they kill the backwards compatibility, the PS3 will become a brand new console. By doing this they lose brand loyalty. (The fact that they’ve lost a lot of exclusive rights doesn’t help here.) If I’m a new buyer and I can’t play my old games on the new system, why should I invest in a PS3 when the both the Wii and Xbox 360 have more quality games to offer. Another issue storage, why do I want to 2-3 consoles cluttering up my space, when I could use that extra space for other electronic devices. It’s so convenient to be able to play a PS1 or PS2 game without the hassle of pulling out an older consoles and setting them up. If you have kids you certainly can’t leave stuff lying around. Another point, if your new to the PS console and are coming from the GameCube or Xbox, there are tons of fantastic titles to play from all 3 generations of the PlayStation. I’m personally experiencing that with my other console the Wii. I’ve snatched up a lot of great titles from the GameCube and SNES (SEGA Genesis fan) like Eternal Darkness, Ikaruga, and such.
RANT MODE OFF:
http://www.farbot.com Paul Munn

Chackokhan,

I agree with you, the convenience factor and value proposition is great for those systems that can play all three PlayStation generations of games.

On a side note, all systems can still play PS1 games. That hasn’t been removed, just PS2 compatibility. This ensures a couple of things.

1. They can sell PS3 owners PS1 games via the store.
2. If you also have a PSP you can play the same purchased game on both PS3 and PSP and share the game saves between them.

That’s a cool feature about the PS3 that I really want to take for a spin sometime. I’d probably buy Symphony Of The Night since I really hated trying to unlock it on the Dracula X Chronicles game.
http://www.farbot.com Paul Munn

Oops I forgot to mention that Sony cut off a possible revenue stream by taking out PS2 backwards compatibility. They could have sold PS2 games via the store by digital download.

Oddly enough Microsoft beat them to this with the Xbox Originals on the console, even if they have horrible emulation problems.
NeoAnderson1955

Absolutely backwards compatibility is a must 4 me.The improvements would be besides compatibility, would also upscale the PS2 games, like the PS3 does for Dvd's & would most certainly boost PS3 sales besides. That Way The PS3 literally would do everything. Seems to me it would be a money maker & keep sales up for the PS2 games also. Doesn't Sony want to lead the Gaming industry, like they did with the PS2. Nuff Said. Signed The One